Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. I have no problem with him being removed. He was told to get to his seat and didn't obey an order. Prayer is a personal thing and should be done on his own time. I have no problem with him praying, just as long as he finishes up without delaying the flight, interrupting other passengers, and abiding by the airlines rules.
NEW YORK - A passenger who left his seat to pray in the back of a plane before it took off, ignoring flight attendants' orders to return, was removed by an airport security guard, a witness and the airline said.
Praying passenger removed from S.F.-bound flight at JFK - Yahoo! News (broken link)
Was this unreasonable?
From what I understand, from watching a "Monk" episode ("Mr. Monk and the Airplane"), it is a federal offense to disobey the orders of a flight attendant. This is what he was told, at least. If he was told to go back to his seat before take-off, then he should have followed orders.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildings_and_bridges
NEW YORK - A passenger who left his seat to pray in the back of a plane before it took off, ignoring flight attendants' orders to return, was removed by an airport security guard, a witness and the airline said.
Praying passenger removed from S.F.-bound flight at JFK - Yahoo! News (broken link)
Was this unreasonable?
It was unreasonable. The reason it was unreasonable is because the passenger should have not only been removed but placed under arrest, charged with interfering with a fllght and put on the no fly list and not allowed to fly again.
When the flight crew tells you to do something, it is not a mere "suggestion". It carries the force of law. Whether on a ship or a plane, the captain and his crew ARE the law.
It was unreasonable. The reason it was unreasonable is because the passenger should have not only been removed but placed under arrest, charged with interfering with a fllght and put on the no fly list and not allowed to fly again.
When the flight crew tells you to do something, it is not a mere "suggestion". It carries the force of law. Whether on a ship or a plane, the captain and his crew ARE the law.
yes, and cops are the supreme almighties. Anyone who dare not do what they say should be immediately shot. screw trials, they waste time anyways...
Anyways, as long as he was disrupting the flight and causing issues for the airline, i dont see this as unreasonable. Now if he was praying buckled up in his seat and someone just found it offensive (Which he was not) then it would be a different story.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanslyke
yes, and cops are the supreme almighties. Anyone who dare not do what they say should be immediately shot. screw trials, they waste time anyways...
Anyways, as long as he was disrupting the flight and causing issues for the airline, i dont see this as unreasonable. Now if he was praying buckled up in his seat and someone just found it offensive (Which he was not) then it would be a different story.
Yes the police are the law. There is a reason we give them badges and guns and that is to maintain safety, peace and order. If you choose to refuse to comply, you do so at your own peril.
I think the airline's decision had nothing to do with the fact that he was praying. It has everything to do with the fact that he was holding up the plane by not being in his seat. When asked, he would not return to his seat.
The plane would not take off until everyone is seated and buckled. He did not comply with a simple request - and was henceforth removed.
I doubt it, and support the actions of the airline. Flying is not a "right".
Quite true. Flying involves a commercial transaction wherein it is agreed that a service will be provided in exchange for a quid pro quo typically involving cash and other considerations. The provision of service itself is governed by regulations, compliance with which by the customer is one term inherent in the offer to provide that service.
However, one does not give up one's rights while flying. There is a line of demarcation between the rights and responsibilities of the service provider and those of the customer, and each must provide due diligence in respecting that line.
In this case, it would appear from the report that a passenger committed a relatively minor trangression against his own repsonsibilities, and that the airline then offered a strict response that may not have been proportionate, but which was still within the bounds of their own rights and responsibilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he was told to go back to his seat before take-off, then he should have followed orders.
